It
is interesting to note that for years the debate between the
conventional literary critics and the postcolonial revolved around the
need to move away from the cultural hegemony of the canon, the power
structures implicit in the curriculum around the world. "Will is
no great shakes" was a statement that did provoke the Shakespeare
lobby which would react by asserting that the postcolonial studies was
more of a bandwagon, a fiefdom of no significant consequence.
Interestingly, Shakespeare’s return to English Studies is ironically
via the postcolonial.

"History from
below" was a democratic norm that was adopted by critics who
began to bestow on the concept of the ‘subaltern’ a political
currency seldom witnessed in contemporary critical practice. The
application of this approach to Shakespearian studies described a new
perspective told from the point of view of the subjugated, something
that the Marxist critics adopted in their view of history from the
proletarian standpoint. As Anand Prakash explains in the book edited
by him: "The term ‘subaltern’ signifies and denotes a
sensitive existence in the midst of self-serving cynicism. To be a
subaltern in Shakespeare is to be a bystander, an observer, a
commentator and a non-participating, yet emphatic presence."

Bhim S. Dahiya, making a
lucid and compelling demand for Shakespeare Studies to return to its
genuine calling, expands the scope of the subject further and provides
a detailed analysis of the notion in Shakespeare’s context arguing
that "Subalterns in ancient Athens, poets and painters, servants
and slaves, all are a class based on their economic condition. They
are conscious of it too, but they are not as yet a political entity in
the state." Dahiya regards Shakespeare as a truly committed
writer who in subtle ways the ruling order and its inherent injustice
and inequality against the common people, the subalterns."

Girija Sharma goes on to
examine Caliban and Prospero in Shakespeare’s The Tempest
from the point of view of genuine sympathy to characters not receiving
support or protection in their surroundings. This is one kind of bias;
another is that people with evil intentions stand squarely accused.
Sharma explains that "Shakespeare has portrayed both Caliban and
Prospero with a lot of sensitivity. If there exists a world full of
evil in the play, it is not associated with Caliban but with Antonio,
Sebastian and others."

Discussions in the book
cover a wide range of characters. R.W. Desai’s comment is insightful
that in Shakespeare’s world, Iago’s ancestor is none other than
Falstaff and that the former "has some of the fat knight’s
chromosomes in his genetic make-up." For Desai "both men are
hard-nosed realists". The survival instinct operating in Iago has
its source in the urgency with which he intervenes in the existing
world and gives enough tough time to his superiors.

There is an eclectic
feel about the book that despite its main focus diverges on many
significant counts. There is a marked feminist bias in a number of
essays. Apart from Girija Sharma, Loveleen Mohan and Monika Sethi,
Pankaj K. Singh and Gitanjali Mahendra also speak from the standpoint
of the critically-oriented woman. There is a clear stress on the
working of the state vis-à-vis broader masses, as the discussions by
Hema Dahiya, Richa Bajaj and Payal Nagpal testify. The three offer a
close textual analysis to prop up the view that Shakespeare
sensitively grasped the political structures in both Roman and
Elizabethan times.

Broadly submissive and
at the receiving end, the subalterns are shown to "think actively
and pass judgment by rejecting the reigning paradigm."
Problematising the theoretical aspect of the subaltern, the book
projects Shakespeare as a writer who transcends any strict ideological
affiliations: "Commitment as we know the term didn’t suit
Shakespeare… He is seldom a writer with a position. (If his)
characters leave an affirmative or negative impact on the audience,
this has to do more with the audiences than the characters
themselves." It is in the dexterous recuperation of the subaltern
subject matter and its re-emergence in Shakespearian criticism that
the book, I hope, will have a broad-based following, especially as it
pits a materialist dialect at the service of the downtrodden. The book
is indeed one more step in the hugely extensive scholarship of
Shakespeare. Moving well beyond all moralism, it expands on the idea
of giving a voice to those who have not been heard till now.